The effect of the type of anesthesia on the quality of postoperative recovery after orthopedic forearm surgery

Functional recovery of wrist surgery with regional versus general anesthesia: a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

Regional anesthesia may favour postoperative rehabilitation by inhibiting peripheral sensitization and secondary hyperalgesia. The literature on this subject is limited. In the present FUNCTION study, we sought to compare the functional recovery post orthopedic wrist surgery with regional versus general anesthesia.

METHODS

We conducted a single-centre prospective observational cohort study in adult patients with a distal radial fracture. Functional recovery was assessed with validated psychometrics questionnaires (Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand [QuickDASH] and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation [PRWE]), range of motion, and grip strength. We used a linear mixed regression model to assess the impact of the anesthesia technique on functional recovery. Postoperative pain and patient satisfaction were evaluated using a visual analog scale.

RESULTS

We recruited 76 patients. At 12 weeks post surgery, there was no difference between the type of anesthesia and functional recovery with the QuickDASH (higher scores worse; regional anesthesia [RA], 22.7 vs general anesthesia [GA], 19.3; adjusted mean difference [aMD], -0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.6 to 9.0; P = 0.9) and PRWE (higher scores worse; RA group, 21.0 vs GA group, 20.5; aMD, -3.3; 95% CI, -12.1 to 5.6; P = 0.93) questionnaires. Range of motion, satisfaction, and postoperative pain were similar between groups. Right-hand grip strength was higher in the GA group.

CONCLUSION

Regional anesthesia was not associated with improved functional recovery compared with general anesthesia. The dominance of the operated limb was a confusion factor in all evaluation modalities. Further research taking into account the dominance of the hand is necessary to establish the effects of regional anesthesia on functional recovery.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04541745); registered 9 September 2020.

Effects of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) technology on early recovery quality in patients after thyroid surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-focused evaluation of postoperative recover has been recognized as one of the most important concerns in postoperative medicine. Previous studies have shown that the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) Questionnaire can be used to accurately assess the quality of recovery from surgery. During thyroid surgery using intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) technology, the strategy of low dose of muscle relaxant, intubation of different endotracheal tubes and electrical stimulation on vocal cord are applied. Its still unknown if these performances would affect patients' postoperative recovery in thyroid surgery patients.

METHODS

82 patients were randomly assigned to the neuromonitoring group (NEURO Group) and the control group (CON Group). In the CON Group, rocuronium (0.6 mg / kg) was given for intubation and additional dose was injected if needed, while in the NEURO Group, only rocuronium (0.3 mg / kg) was given when induction. The primary outcome is the QoR-40 scores on postoperative day 1 (POD1) and postoperative day 3 (POD3). Other parameters, such as postoperative nausea or vomiting (PONV) and medical cost were also recorded.

RESULTS

One subject in each group was excluded, leaving 80 for analysis. In the NEURO Group, the global QoR-40 score, emotional state, physical comfort, physical independence and pain were significantly lower both on POD1 and POD3 (P<0.05). Patients in the NEURO Group had a higher incidence of PONV (P<0.05) and medical expense (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

After thyroidectomy, the patients using IONM suffer worse quality of recovery, more risk of PONV and increased medical expense.

Functional recovery with peripheral nerve block versus general anesthesia for upper limb surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Peripheral nerve block is a common anesthetic technique used during orthopedic upper limb surgery. Injection of local anesthetics around the target nerve inhibits the action of voltage-dependent sodium channels, inhibiting neurotransmission of pain impulses and providing motor immobility. Compared to general anesthesia, it could improve functional recovery by inhibiting nociceptive impulses and inflammation, thus reducing postoperative pain and immobilization and improving postoperative rehabilitation. This systematic review evaluates the impact of peripheral nerve block versus general anesthesia on postoperative functional recovery following orthopedic upper limb surgery.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, and Scopus trial databases from inception until September 2021 for studies comparing peripheral nerve block to general anesthesia. We collected data on functional recovery, range of motion, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and return to work. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and summarized the quality of evidence with the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We assessed 373 citations and 19 full-text articles for eligibility, and included six studies. Six studies reported on functional recovery, but failed to detect a significant superiority of peripheral nerve block over general anesthesia (3 RCT studies, N = 160; SMD -0.15; CI at 95% -0.60-0.3; I² = 45%; p = 0.07; low quality of evidence and 3 observational studies, N = 377; SMD -0.35; CI at 95% -0.71-0.01; I² = 64%; p = 0.06; very low quality of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature is limited and fails to identify the benefit of peripheral nerve block on functional recovery. More studies are needed to assess the impact on long-term recovery. Considering the potential impact on clinical practice and training, a prospective study on functional recovery is ongoing (NCT04541745).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID CRD42018116298. Registered on December 4, 2018.

The quality of recovery after erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing breast surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The erector spinae plane (ESP) block has recently been shown to effectively alleviate postoperative pain and reduce opioid consumption in breast surgery patients. However, data are still limited concerning the quality of recovery in patients following this procedure.

METHODS

This study was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) performed in a university hospital. We randomly allocated patients to one of three groups: ESP, SHAM, and control (CON). Procedures in the ESP and SHAM blocks were performed ipsilaterally with 0.375% ropivacaine or 0.9% saline (0.4 mL/kg). Our primary outcome was the assessment of the patient's improvement with quality-of-recovery 40 (QoR-40) a day after surgery. Other outcome assessments included postoperative pain evaluation on the visual analog scale (VAS), 24-hour opioid consumption with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), time to the first opioid demand, and global satisfaction with perioperative treatment.

RESULTS

Overall, patients in the ESP group had improved QoR-40 compared to the CON group, 186 [177-193] vs. 175 [165-183] (medians and interquartile ranges). Pain severity was significantly higher in the CON group compared to the ESP group at hours 2 (38 [23-53] vs. 20 [7-32]) and 4 (30 [18-51] vs. 19 [7-25]). Moreover, we observed lower oxycodone consumption after 24 hours with the PCA pump between the ESP (4 [2-8] mg) and the CON (9.5 [5-19]) groups. Patients in the CON group used PCA sooner than those in the ESP group. Participants in the ESP group were more satisfied with treatment than those in the CON group. We found no statistical difference between SHAM and the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the CON group, the ESP block improved the quality of recovery, alleviated pain intensity, and lowered opioid consumption in patients undergoing breast surgery. However, we did not observe this superiority in comparison with the SHAM group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04726878 .

Transparency considerations for describing statistical analyses in research

Researchers who use the results of statistical analyses to draw conclusions about collected data must write a statistical analysis section in their manuscript. Describing statistical analyses in precise detail is as important as presenting the dosages of drugs and methodology of interventions. It is also essential for scientific accuracy and transparency in scientific research. We evaluated the quality of the statistical analysis sections of clinical research articles published in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology between February 2020 and February 2021. Using a Likert scale where 1, 2, and 3 represented “not described at all,” “partially described,” and “fully described,” respectively, the following 6 items were assessed: 1) stating of the statistical analysis methods used, 2) rationale for and detailed description of the statistical analysis methods used, 3) parameters derived from the statistical analyses, 4) type and version of the statistical software package used, 5) significance level, and 6) sidedness of the test (one-sided vs. two-sided). The first 3 items evaluate issues directly related to the statistical analysis methods used and last 3 are indirectly related items. In all the included articles, the statistical analysis methods used were stated (score of 3). However, only 4 articles (12.9%) fully described the sidedness of the test (score of 3). Authors tend not to describe the sidedness of statistical analysis tests in the methodology section of clinical research articles. It is essential that the sidedness be described in research studies.